The above article mentions that 88% households (80% in rural and 97% in urban areas) have a pucca or semi-pucca house in the state. I have not read or heard of a bigger lie in the last 55 years. One has just to walk around Mumbai and will see that a reverse could perhaps be true. Of course, the one fact where I could be totally proved wrong is if the survey does not consider the slum / hutment dwellers as "households". Then of course, their statistics will sound so true.
It is the legislators and the goonlords who permit the slums to come up. The road leading up to my house in Mumbai, sees continuing addition of slums. The interesting thing is that most of them manage to get a 'ration card' in double quick time, so that they can be beneficiaries of any rehab programme.
In Mumbai, you have to be either very rich or very poor. If you are very rich, the costs and prices mean nothing to you. Especially housing. If you are very poor, no issue. Encroach and then get a rehab house, sell it and repeat the process. If you are a middle class person with morals, God help you. Unlike a slum dweller, you cannot be in Central or South Bombay. You have to go as far away as possible, if you want a house at all.
The media also goes gung ho with the term affordable housing, which they now explain as something priced at around three million rupees. How many can afford ? One has to have a family income of at least 100,000 rupees a month to think of one.And three million rupees will get you a 600 sq feet (super built up, with carpet area of 400 sq feet) house in the extended suburbs of what was once NOT Bombay.
If you want a house in the western suburbs ( a two bedroom) then a ten million rupee budget is a must. In fact, if your budget is less than this, you may not even get a broker to serve you.